Pure Appl. Geophys.

Ó 2021 The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

https://doi.org/10.1007/s00024-021-02693-3 Pure and Applied Geophysics

The 30 October 2020 Aegean Sea Tsunami: Post-Event Field Survey Along Turkish Coast
GOZDE GUNEY DOGAN,1 AHMET CEVDET YALCINER,1 YALCIN YUKSEL,2 ERGIN ULUTAŞ ,3 ORHAN POLAT,4
IŞ ıKHAN GÜLER,1 CIHAN Ş AHIN,2 AHMET TARIH,5 and UTKU KÂNOĞLU6

Abstract—On 30 October 2020, a strong normal-faulting 1. Introduction

earthquake struck Samos Island in Greece and İzmir Province in
Turkey, both in the eastern Aegean Sea. The earthquake generated
a tsunami that hit the coasts of Samos Island, Greece and İzmir,
Turkey. National teams performed two post-tsunami field surveys
on 31 October to 1 November 2020, and 4–6 November 2020,
along the Turkish coastline; while the former was a quick survey on
the days following the tsunami, the latter involved more detailed
measurement and investigation focusing on a * 110-km-long
coastline extending from Alaçatı (Çeşme District of İzmir) to
Gümüldür (Menderes District of İzmir). The survey teams mea-
sured runup and tsunami heights, flow depths, and inundation
distances at more than 120 points at eight different localities. The
largest tsunami runup among the surveyed locations was measured
as 3.8 m in Akarca at a distance of 91 m from the shoreline. The
maximum tsunami height of 2.3 m (with a flow depth of 1.4 m)
was observed at Kaleiçi region in Sığacık, where the most severe
tsunami damage was observed. There, the maximum runup height
was measured as 1.9 m at the northeastern side of the bay. The
survey team also investigated tsunami damage to coastal structures,
noticing a gradual decrease in the impact from Gümüldür to further
southeast. The findings of this field survey provide insights into the
coastal impact of local tsunamis in the Aegean Sea.
Keywords: Tsunami, post-tsunami survey, runup, tsunami
height, flow depth, inundation, coastal damage, Samos, Sığacık,
Seferihisar, Aegean Sea.
1
Ocean Engineering Research Center, Department of Civil
Engineering, Middle East Technical University, Ankara, Turkey.
E-mail: gguneydogan@gmail.com
2
Hydraulics Division, Department of Civil Engineering,
Yıldız Technical University, İstanbul, Turkey.
3
Seismology Division, Department of Geophysics Engi-
neering, Kocaeli University, Kocaeli, Turkey.
4
Seismology Division, Department of Geophysics Engi-
neering, Dokuz Eylül University, İzmir, Turkey.
5
Directorate of Earthquake and Ground Research, İstanbul
Metropolitan Municipality, İstanbul, Turkey.
6
Department of Engineering Sciences, Middle East Tech-
nical University, Ankara, Turkey.
Mediterranean communities tend to settle in low-
lying coastal zones, prone to marine hazards,
including tsunamis. This rapid demographic growth,
often accompanied by extensive economic activities,
drastically increases the coastal community’s expo-
sure to tsunamis. In the Aegean Sea, the densely
populated coastal areas have been exposed to several
tsunamis in the past, some being devastating (Altınok
and Ersoy 2000; Altınok et al. 2011; Ambraseys
1962; Ambraseys and Synolakis 2010; Dominey-
Howes 2002; Galanopoulos 1960; Kuran and Yal-
ciner 1993; Minoura et al. 2000; Papadopoulos and
Chalkis 1984; Papadopoulos et al. 2014; Tinti et al.
2001). The most well-known tsunami in the region is
the 1956 Amorgos event (Mw 7.8) that caused runup
heights up to 25 m (Beisel et al. 2009; Okal et al.
2009; Papadopoulos and Pavlides 1992; Papazachos
et al. 1985; Yalciner et al. 1995). More recently, the
eastern Aegean Sea was the place of two tsunamis
that followed Mw 6.3 and 6.6 magnitude earthquakes
in June and July 2017, respectively. Both the 12 June
2017 Lesvos and the 21 July 2017 Bodrum–Kos
events brought to the fore the tsunami threat from
moderate magnitude earthquakes in the region,
serving as reminders to the coastal communities. The
latter event caused a significant impact on the
southern coast of Bodrum Peninsula in Turkey and
Kos Port in Kos Island in Greece (Dogan et al. 2019).
İzmir Metropolitan City, located at the western
extremity of Turkey, has a * 629-km-long coastline
in the eastern Aegean Sea and is the third largest city
in the country in terms of population, industrial
density, capacity, and contribution to the national
economy, following İstanbul and Ankara. Here, tsu-
namis were documented in the past after the
 G. G. Dogan et al.
earthquakes of 20 March 1389 in Chios, Greece, 10
July 1688 in İzmir Bay, Turkey, and 12 May and 8
September 1852 in İzmir (Altınok and Ersoy 2000;
Altınok et al. 2011). Specifically, the 3 April 1881
Chios earthquake (Mw 6.5) generated a tsunami
affecting the Çeşme coast with a Medvedev–Spon-
heuer–Karnik (MSK) (Sponheuer and Karnik 1964)
intensity Io = 9 in some residential areas (Altınok
et al. 2005).
On 30 October 2020, a strong normal-faulting
earthquake (Mw 6.6, AFAD 2020) struck Samos
Island in Greece and İzmir Province in Turkey in the
eastern Aegean. The tsunami that followed the
earthquake caused significant damage in Çeşme and
Seferihisar Districts of İzmir and Samos Island
coasts, and resulted in one casualty and several
injured people from the tsunami on the Turkish side
(Anadolu Agency 2020). Kandilli Observatory and
Earthquake Research Institute (KOERI), Turkey’s
national tsunami warning center and tsunami service
provider for the North-Eastern Atlantic, the
Mediterranean and Connected Seas Tsunami Warn-
ing System (NEAMTWS), issued a tsunami warning
11 min after the main event.
We present the results from the two field surveys
conducted by national teams along the Aegean coast
of Turkey to collect the tsunami data following the 30
October 2020 Samos–İzmir event. Our results include
flow depth, runup and inundation measurements,
arrival time, and coastal damage observations. Fur-
thermore, we discuss the survey findings to better
understand the tsunami behavior and its effects on the
nearby coastal areas.
2. Seismotectonics
The eastern Aegean Sea region is characterized
predominantly by dip-slip extensional tectonics
(Aktar et al. 2007; Jackson 1994; Taymaz et al.
1991). It includes E–W trending faults by the areas
extending in N–S direction and exhibits dextral
(right-lateral) or sinistral (left-lateral) components
(Dewey and Şengör 1979; Jackson and McKenzie
1988; Taymaz et al. 1991; Papazachos et al. 1998;
Bozkurt 2003; Emre et al. 2011; Tan et al. 2014;
Tepe and Sözbilir 2017). Therefore, the tsunami
Pure Appl. Geophys.
threat in the study area is mainly associated with
dominant normal faults that reveal a high potential
risk for coastal areas.
On 30 October 2020, 12:51 UTC (14:51 local
time), a submarine earthquake (Mw 6.6) occurred at
the north of Samos Island, Greece, and offshore
Seferihisar-İzmir, Turkey, with an epicenter of
(37.88° N, 26.70° E) at a depth of * 15 km (AFAD
2020). A total of 39 foreshocks occurred in the epi-
center’s vicinity within the last 3 months before the
event. Magnitudes of these earthquakes were not
significant except the one with a magnitude of
Mw 3.6 that occurred approximately at a 7 km depth
on 9 October 2020, about 5 km west of the main-
shock (Fig. 1).
More than 4600 aftershocks have occurred by the
end of November 2020, 50 having magnitudes Mw
C 4.0. The largest one with a magnitude of Mw 5.1
occurred at 16:14 (UTC), about 4 h after the earth-
quake, approximately 10 km southeast of the
epicenter at a depth of about 7 km. From the conju-
gate-type aftershocks distribution between Dilek
Peninsula (DP) in Turkey and north of Ikaria Island
of Greece, approximately 80–100 km rupture length
in E–W direction is evident in four segments with
visible seismic gaps. Three segments are located in
the northern part of the Samos, while the eastern
swarm is aligned on the NNE–SSW direction, which
is parallel with the alignment of Büyük Menderes
Graben (BMG) (Fig. 1). North of Kuşadası Bay (KB)
and the western part of the Samos reveals diffuse-
type seismic activity. Nevertheless, a clear local
cluster is prominent near Orhanlı-Tuzla Fault (OTF)
between Gümüldür and Özdere Districts (Fig. 1). The
present state of the aftershock distributions points to
conjugate faulting as suggested by Aktar et al. (2007)
for the earthquake swarm (Mw 5.9) on 17–21 October
2005 in Sığacık Bay (SB).
The fault plane solution of the mainshock shows a
normal fault rupture on an E–W aligned plane dip-
ping * 40° to the north, according to the preliminary
results of AFAD. All other focal mechanism solutions
obtained from aftershocks also indicate dip-slip
(dominant normal) faults with dip angles ranging
from 33° to 74° towards the N or NE (Appendix 1
Table 1).
 The 30 October 2020 Aegean Sea Tsunami

Figure 1
Seismotectonic map of Samos Island and its surroundings. The star shows the mainshock of 30 October 2020 Samos Island–İzmir earthquake
(Mw 6.6). The beach balls present the focal mechanisms of the mainshock and the aftershocks given in Appendix 1, Table 1. The black and red
circles indicate 3-month foreshocks and 2-month aftershocks, respectively, as of Ministry of Interior Disaster and Emergency Management of
Presidency (AFAD 2020) data. Marine and terrestrial faults are compiled from Chatzipetros et al. (2013), Emre et al. (2013), Evelpidou et al.
(2019), and Ring et al. (2017). The kinematic parameters of the focal mechanism solutions are given in Appendix 1, Table 1. (BMG Büyük
Menderes Graben, DP Dilek Peninsula, GF Gülbahçe Fault, I˙B İzmir Bay, KF Karaburun Fault, KMG Küçük Menderes Graben, KB Kuşadası
Bay, OTF Orhanlı-Tuzla Fault, SF Seferihisar Fault, SB Sığacık Bay). Black rectangles denote the post-tsunami survey localities. White
rectangles represent tide gauges in the inset map. Bathymetric and topographic data are from EMODnet Digital Terrain Model (https://www.
emodnet-bathymetry.eu)
 G. G. Dogan et al. Pure Appl. Geophys.

Figure 2
Detided tide-gauge measurements of five stations in the Aegean Sea for the 30 October 2020 tsunami. The red dashed lines show the
earthquake time, 12:51 UTC

3. Sea-Level Recordings sampling intervals have been downloaded (http://

The 30 October 2020 tsunami was recorded by the
tide gauge network of the Aegean Sea (Fig. 1).
However, as the sea level sensors are located outside
the area majorly affected by the tsunami, none of the
stations recorded sizable waves (Fig. 1). We present
the detided measurements from five tide gauges
(Fig. 2). The mareogram data recorded at 1 min
www.ioc-sealevelmonitoring.org/station.php?code=
stationcode), and the detiding process is carried out
by using a fast Fourier transform (FFT) band-pass
filter to remove the astronomical tide. There is a clear
indication of the tsunami at all five stations. How-
ever, the measured amplitudes, ranging between 3 cm
measured at Bodrum and 12 cm measured at Kos
 The 30 October 2020 Aegean Sea Tsunami

Figure 3
a Map showing the surveyed locations in Alaçatı locality (image is taken from Google Earth) The red line shows the tsunami penetration/
inundation zone. b Tsunami traces visible on Alaçatı Azmak bridge (at * 30 cm above the bottom of the bridge wall) located 1.0 km away
from the coastline (38.2706° N, 26.3768° E), c Fisher boat dragged 1160 m away from the fishery port along Alaçatı Azmak, d Water level
increase at the garden wall of Alaçatı Port houses according to the house owner

station, are much smaller than the near-field obser-
vations, as can be expected from the gauge locations.
4. Post-tsunami Field Measurements
The main objectives of the post-tsunami field
survey were (1) to document the tsunami effects
along the coast, (2) to obtain any available data on the
observed coastal amplitudes and inundation extent,
(3) to perform audiovisual recording before cleanup,
(4) to interview the eyewitnesses, and (5) to
understand and explain the event in detail. The first
survey took place 2 days after the earthquake (31
October to 1 November 2020) to acquire data before
any cleanup. The second survey was carried out on
4–6 November 2020, for a more detailed investiga-
tion, including flow depth, runup and inundation
measurements, eyewitness accounts, and identifica-
tion of damages to coastal structures. The tsunami
characteristics were measured using the conventional
methods described in the UNESCO-IOC ITST Post-
Tsunami Survey Field Guide 2nd Edition (UNESCO-
ITST 2014).
 G. G. Dogan et al. Pure Appl. Geophys.

Figure 4
a Map showing the surveyed locations and the tsunami inundation zone (red line) in Zeytineli (image is taken from Google Earth). The
corresponding survey location IDs are indicated at the lower left corner of each figure. b Damaged bridge on Zeytineli Azmak due to tsunami.
c Panoramic view of tsunami inundation in Zeytineli. Debris accumulated d inside and at e outer wall of a house (flow depth 1.5 m). f Wave
traces on palm tree near the coastline (flow depth 1.9 m)
 The 30 October 2020 Aegean Sea Tsunami

Figure 5
a Original layout of the concrete blocks in Zeytineli (image is taken from Google Earth). b Concrete blocks drifted and scattered by the
tsunami. c Closer view of drifted and damaged concrete blocks. Yellow lines indicate the original location of the blocks before the tsunami

The survey covered the * 110-km-long coastline
and mainly focused on three regions (Fig. 1): (1)
Alaçatı and Zeytineli on the northwestern coast, (2)
Demircili, Altınköy, Sığacık, Akarca, and Tepecik in
the Seferihisar District on the northern coast, and (3)
Gümüldür on the northeastern coast with respect to
the earthquake epicenter. The teams collected field
data on tsunami penetration evidence such as
deposited debris, watermarks left on structures, and
damage to vegetation and objects. We conducted
eyewitness interviews and gathered available video
recordings to obtain more information on the tsunami
behavior at the time of the event. Laser ruler instru-
ments and two GPS stations (ProMark 700) were
used to perform flow depth, runup, and inundation
measurements. All measurements were then refer-
enced to the sea level at the time of the event, which
was at low tide, 0.2 m, with respect to the mean lower
low water (MLLW) (http://tides4fishing.com/as/
turkey/izmir). This level was determined according
to the long-term water level marks at the quay walls
of Port Alaçatı and Sığacık Marinas, also confirmed
by the managers of these marinas (assuming no sig-
nificant variations in the sea level inside the marinas).
The results of the survey are summarized in Appen-
dix 2, Table 1.
4.1. Observations in the North-Western Coast
4.1.1 Alaçatı Locality
In Alaçatı, there is a stream—azmak in Turkish—
called Alaçatı Azmak where maximum tsunami
penetration was * 2490 m (Fig. 3a, Table 2-AL9).
The tsunami inundation mainly followed the azmak
streambed and the flat coastal topography (Fig. 3a). A
boat was dragged * 1160 m along the stream
(Fig. 3a–c, Table 2-AL8) from its location in the
 G. G. Dogan et al. Pure Appl. Geophys.

Figure 6
a Map showing the surveyed locations in Demircili (image is taken from Google Earth). b Small tsunami inundation (red line) in Demircili
Beach on the northwestern side of the bay c, d Damaged boats observed in the small fishery structure on the southeastern bay of Demircili

fishery port. In the fishery port and Port Alaçatı
Marina, the maximum inundation distances
were * 73 m with runup heights of around 1.0 m
(Fig. 3, Table 2-AL2 and AL5). According to house
owners and video recordings, Port Alaçatı houses
were also affected by the tsunami, where the water
level rose by 1.7 m (Fig. 3d, Table 2-AL6 and AL7).
According to the Port Alaçatı houses manager, before
the first positive wave arrived, the sea receded to a
depth of 1.5 m, 28 min after the earthquake, con-
firmed by security video recordings (Appendix 3,
Fig. 21).
4.1.2 Zeytineli Locality
Zeytineli was the area most impacted by the tsunami
on the northwestern coastline (to the epicenter),
where a significant tsunami penetration was observed
along the stream, Zeytineli Azmak. The tsunami
inundation zone mainly followed the streambed and
the surrounding low-lying flat topography, as there
are steep slopes on both sides (mountainside)
(Fig. 4a–c). The abandoned summerhouses along
the shore were severely damaged, and debris accu-
mulated on both outer walls and inside (Fig. 4d–e,
Table 2-Z3 and Z4). The maximum inundation
distance was * 760 m along the NNE–SSW
 The 30 October 2020 Aegean Sea Tsunami

Figure 7
a Tsunami inundation area in Altınköy locality a on the beach, b along the streambed, and c on the beach in closer view (photos in insets (b,
c) were provided by eyewitnesses)

direction from the sea coast. The flow depth was
1.9 m on the palm trees, 50 m away from the
coastline (Fig. 4f, Table 2-Z5). Additionally, con-
crete blocks (30 9 50 9 300 cm), weighing
approximately 1 ton, were found dragged 20–25 m
inland direction and scattered from their original
locations by the tsunami (Fig. 5).
4.2. Observations in the Northern Coast
4.2.1 Demircili and Altınköy Localities
The tsunami impact was quite different in the
northwestern and southeastern parts of the coastline
in Demircili. Only a small inundation of * 45 m
was measured on the northwestern side of the coast
 G. G. Dogan et al. Pure Appl. Geophys.

Figure 8
General view of the surveyed locations in Sığacık. Dashed yellow lines show the local river/riverbeds where the tsunami penetrated. Teos
Marina and Kaleiçi regions experienced heavy damage. There was significant inundation in the most low-lying area (* 410 m) due to an
incoming wave through the bay (Table 2-S19) as well as through Teos Marina (Table 2-S30) (image is taken from Google Earth)

(Fig. 6, Table 2-D1). On the other hand, considerable (Fig. 6, Table 2-D2). According to eyewitnesses, the
damage was observed by the local people and fishers sea receded almost 20 min after the earthquake and
on a narrow beach on the southeastern side of the bay returned in 3–4 min. They observed this receding–
 The 30 October 2020 Aegean Sea Tsunami

Figure 9
Distribution of the measured tsunami and runup heights along the surveyed coastline in Sığacık due to the 30 October 2020 tsunami. The blue
bars represent the tsunami height, and the red ones represent the runup. The labels are given as survey point ID–measured value (m)

inundation for almost 5 h. Boats moored at a depth of
1.8 m were grounded when the sea receded. Here, the
water level rose by more than 1 m inside the small
fishery shelter. Further east, the runup was 0.7 m on
Denizyıldızı beach (Fig. 6, Table 2-D3), and the
inundation distance was about 15 m at this location,
as inferred from seaweed deposits.
In Altınköy, the tsunami inundated the beach up
to * 230 m (Fig. 7a, Table 2-ALT1). The tsunami
penetration along the streambed reached * 600 m
with a flow depth of 0.2 m (Fig. 7b, Table 2-ALT2).
4.2.2 Sığacık Locality
Sığacık, a low-lying bay-shaped area with several
local streambeds, was the most impacted area of the
tsunami-affected coastline (Fig. 8). The tsunami
height measurements at surveyed locations in Sığacık
range from 0.9 to 2.3 m (Fig. 9). We measured the
maximum runup as 1.9 m (Table 2-S21). Further
tsunami inundation and impact were observed in the
low-lying areas surrounding the local streams of the
bay (Figs. 8, 9). We observed significant inundation
in the most low-lying area (Fig. 8). Here, we
measured the inundation distance as * 410 m
(Table 2-S19). The tsunami also caused significant
damage to properties and houses at that location,
leaving injured locals who barely survived the
tsunami (Fig. 10a–d).
In Teos Ancient City, which was one of the 12
Ionian city-states established on the coast of the
Aegean Sea in Western Anatolia, two ports were
serving the city, the southern port with an entrance
8 km south of Sığacık and the northern port located
near Sığacık, at the location of the current Teos
Marina. We found inland tsunami traces at a distance
of * 550 m from the shore, penetrated along the
low-lying old streambed area, which was connecting
the ancient city to the sea. The tsunami completely
inundated the southern port facilities (storage build-
ings, service structures, and berthing places) of Teos
Ancient City.
We observed significant damage in Teos Marina,
one of the significant coastal facilities (for more
information, see Sect. 5). The flow depth was mea-
sured as 0.9 m on the garden fence of the port near
the pedestrian entrance, corresponding to a tsunami
height of 2.1 m (Fig. 11a, Table 2-S1). The tsunami
penetrated * 210 m through a local stream
 G. G. Dogan et al.
Figure 10
Observed damage on garden walls and summerhouse garden entrances at low-lying maximum inundation area in Sığacık locality a–c at point
S16, d at point S15
connected to the sea inside the marina and flooded the
surrounding area with a flow depth of 0.5 m (1.5 m in
the streambed) (Fig. 11b, Table 2-S5). At another
local stream, further northeast from Teos Marina, the
tsunami penetration caused a 1.5 m water level rise
from the streambed ground overflowing the small
bridge at the upstream, according to eyewitnesses
(Table 2-S11). Figure 11c shows damaged boats and
seafront facilities on the Sığacık coastline.
Kaleiçi region, located along the coastline with
many cafes and shops, was heavily damaged
(Fig. 12a–e). We examined the incoming tsunami
dynamics in Kaleiçi from a security video recording
(Appendix 3 Fig. 22). According to our inferences,
the maximum sea withdrawal occurred * 13 min
after the earthquake, while the first positive wave
arrived at * 18 min.
Pure Appl. Geophys.
4.2.3 Akarca Locality
The Akarca coast has three bays, with a highly
localized tsunami impact in the central one and a
significant reduction in the northwest and southeast
directions (Fig. 13a, Table 2-A30, A32, A36–A40).
We collected a significant number of measurements
in the central part of Akarca and gathered information
from eyewitnesses. The maximum inundation dis-
tance in Akarca was measured as * 290 m
(Fig. 13b, Table 2-A8). We present two different
cross-sectional profiles of tsunami height measure-
ments in Fig. 13c–d. The tsunami height and runup
distributions along the surveyed coastline are also
given in Fig. 14. The maximum runup among all
surveyed locations was measured as 3.8 m (Fig. 15a,
Table 2-A5) and observed at a distance of 91 m from
the shore.
 The 30 October 2020 Aegean Sea Tsunami

Figure 11
a Tsunami traces on the garden fence of Teos Marina (S1) corresponding to a flow depth of 0.9 m. b Tsunami flood traces on the iron fences
of a local river, connected to the sea inside Teos Marina, found at * 210 m inland with a flow depth of 0.5 m (1.5 m in the riverbed).
c Damaged boats and seafront facilities on Sığacık coastline

Seferihisar Diving Center, located in the central
part of Akarca, was severely damaged by the tsunami
with a flow depth of 2.2 m (Fig. 15b, Table 2-A24).
Here, the sea receded * 180 m to a depth of * 4 m.
The diving center owner stated that he was drifted by
the incoming wave to 200–250 m inland on a sofa
and barely survived the tsunami. The inundation
distance here reached 280 m. He described the first
wave’s arrival time as 10–12 min after the earth-
quake, observing four to five waves with 8–10 min
between successive waves.
The garden fences and walls of the shore-facing
summer houses also had notable damage (Fig. 15c–d,
Table 2-A15). We measured 1.9 m splash height on a
vertical wall of a house located just near the shore
(Fig. 15c, Table 2-A1). A boat was dragged 90 m
inland by the tsunami (Fig. 16a, Table 2-A6), where a
car (* 55 m) and a water storage tank (half full)
were also dragged inland by the strong waves
(Fig. 16b–d, Table 2-A3).
4.2.4 Tepecik Locality
Tepecik is another region where we noticed localized
tsunami effects in several small bay-shaped areas.
There was an overall decrease in the tsunami impact
here compared with Akarca, with continuing impact
decrease to the southeastern direction. The highland
topography of this coastal area and the absence of
many streams/streambeds (except one location,
Table 2-T3) might be the reasons. Only small
inundation was observed according to deposits on
the beaches (Fig. 17a–b, Table 2-T1 and T5). The
local maximum inundation reached 120 m along a
small stream (Table 2-T3), where inundation was
20 m on the beach (Table 2-T2). A flow depth of
1.5 m was measured at location Table 2-T4, where
the ground elevation was * 0.5 m above the sea
level.
4.3. Observations in the Northeastern Coast
4.3.1 Gümüldür Locality
Minor tsunami impact was observed in Gümüldür,
mainly limited to narrow beach areas. The inundation
distances ranged between 15 m and 25 m (Table 2-
G1–G6), with a maximum value measured at the
beach in front of Rafael Boutique Hotel (Table 2-G1).
We found tsunami trace on a small pier with a flow
depth of 0.5 m at only one location in Gümüldür
(Table 2-G4).
We acquired information from local eyewitnesses
about the tsunami behavior in Davutlar in Kuşadası
District, the most southeastern coast from the
epicenter. According to eyewitnesses, there was no
significant abnormal water surface fluctuation or
inundation in Davutlar. The tsunami pene-
trated * 30 m along a small streambed in Sevgi
Beach in Davutlar. Our field observations show a
significant reduction in the coastal impacts east from
the V-shaped cape between Tepecik and Gümüldür.
 G. G. Dogan et al. Pure Appl. Geophys.

Figure 12
Heavily damaged cafes and shops in Kaleiçi region in Sığacık locality at points a S9, b S43, c S4, d, and e S9–S10

5. Observations of Tsunami Dynamics and Impact/
Damage on Coastal Facilities
In addition to the measurements of coastal tsu-
nami parameters, we investigated the tsunami impact
on coastal facilities, including small fishery shelters,
ports, and marinas. Most of the damaged structures
were poorly engineered structures, except Teos
Marina in Sığacık. Teos Marina is a modern five-
anchor quality marina, constructed and operated
according to the national and international engineer-
ing and operational standards with 560 boat capacity.
In Teos Marina (Fig. 8), four piers out of six
(composed of floating pontoons) were displaced, and
more than 320 boats were moved (some boats sank,
and some were moved outside the marina by the
tsunami). Figure 18 shows the Teos Marina’s layout
and the boats before (Fig. 18a) and after (Fig. 18b–c)
the tsunami. There is a stream inside the marina
(Fig. 8) through which the tsunami penetrated and
inundated Sığacık town. The backflow of inundation
through the local stream discharging to the marina
basin seems to be the primary cause of the strong
currents and associated damage in Teos Marina.
 The 30 October 2020 Aegean Sea Tsunami

Figure 13
a General and b closer view of the surveyed locations in Akarca. The red rectangle shows the central bay of Akarca, where the tsunami impact
was highly localized. c, d Cross profiles of measured tsunami inundation heights in Akarca at A–A0 and B–B0 , respectively (image is taken
from Google Earth)

According to the general manager, the marina expe-
rienced large period oscillations lasting 4–5 h with an
amplitude of 0.7 m. He stated that, 15 min after the
earthquake, the marina’s water level decreased until
the sea bottom appeared at some parts. Eyewitnesses
heard loud bursts due to the breaking of the ropes
connecting boats to the pontoons. Some boats were
grounded on the sea bottom. Twenty minutes after
the earthquake, the incoming waves caused strong
current speeds and eddies inside the marina. The
water level increased and reached * 2 m above the
mean sea level at fixed berthing places * 25 min
after the earthquake. He also informed that the
second wave was more destructive, causing signifi-
cant damage and grounding the boats to the sea
bottom.
Port Alaçatı Marina (Fig. 3), which was well-
engineered and floating concrete pontoons with 250
boat capacity, had damage only on connection points
of the floating piers to the docks and fuel station,
according to the general manager. However, consid-
erable damage was reported in the fishery port
located near the marina. The sea receded to a depth
of * 2.5 m, 13 min after the earthquake, based on
eyewitness interviews. The incoming wave was
observed 20 min after the earthquake, 7–8 min after
the withdrawal, and the water level rose to 1.5 m
inside the marina.
The small fishery port in Akarca suffered sub-
stantial damage. All of the floating piers (Fig. 19a–b)
and many port facilities (Fig. 19c–d) were destroyed
and became unusable. More than 20 boats were sunk,
as reported by the Akarca fishery cooperative
president.
We also observed severe tsunami damage at
another small fishery shelter in Zeytineli (Fig. 20).
 G. G. Dogan et al. Pure Appl. Geophys.

Figure 14
Distribution of the measured tsunami and runup heights along the surveyed coastline in Akarca. The blue bars represent the tsunami height,
and the red ones represent the runup. The labels are given in a point ID–measured value format

The poorly engineered mooring and berthing struc-
tures and all of the boats in the shelter were destroyed
and became unusable, requiring complete recon-
struction. The cars parked close to the shore were
drifted to the sea. The sunk boats were required res-
cue operations.
6. Discussion and Conclusions
The tsunami that followed the 30 October 2020
earthquake confirms the potential tsunami generation
of segmented normal faults in the eastern Aegean and
highlights the tsunami threat in the region. The results
of the post-tsunami field surveys performed along a
* 110-km-long coastline demonstrate the significant
tsunami impact. This study’s primary limitation was
that the fieldwork had to be performed under Covid-
19 pandemic conditions, limiting time and human
interaction considerably. Nevertheless, we attempted
to attain clear information based on evidence, which
necessitates a proper evaluation of the tsunami traces
and eyewitness observations.
According to our findings from the field recon-
naissances and eyewitness reports, the most impacted
areas were Sığacık, especially Sığacık Teos Marina,
and Akarca, about 30 km north from the epicenter. In
Sığacık, the maximum inundation distance was
measured as * 410 m, whereas it reached * 290 m
in Akarca. Two hundred boats were sunk and
destroyed at heavily damaged Teos Marina. In Teos
Ancient City, located at the south of Sığacık, the
inundation distance reached 550 m. The tsunami
penetrated * 2490 m along Alaçatı Azmak (stream)
and inundated the surrounding low-lying areas. The
maximum inundation was * 760 m in Zeytineli,
among all surveyed locations.
In the northwest, in Zeytineli, the local maximum
flow depth was 1.9 m on the palm trees 50 m away
from the coastline, whereas the local maximum runup
reached 2.4 m. The maximum tsunami height was
obtained in the Kaleiçi region of Sığacık and mea-
sured as 2.3 m, corresponding to a flow depth of
 The 30 October 2020 Aegean Sea Tsunami

Figure 15
Observed destruction on properties and tsunami debris at summerhouse gardens in Akarca a tsunami deposits observed at maximum runup
(3.8 m) (A5), b destruction in Seferihisar Diving Center where 2.2 m flow depth was measured (A24), c destroyed concrete garden walls of a
summerhouse (A1) (1.9 m splash height measurement is shown on the upper-right inset), d destroyed iron garden fences of a summerhouse
(A15)

1.4 m. The maximum tsunami runup of 3.8 m was
measured at an inundation distance of 91 m at
Akarca. The tsunami impact decreased dramatically
after the ‘‘V’’ shaped peninsula between Tepecik and
Gümüldür localities. We identified almost no signif-
icant inundation or other indications of tsunami
impact beyond Gümüldür, southeast of the earth-
quake epicenter.
On the Greek side, the 30 October tsunami
impacted the island of Samos within a few minutes.
In the harbor of Karlovasi, located on the island’s
NW side and one of the nearest coastal locations to
the fault rupture area, wave runup reached 1.8 m. The
most impacted area of Samos Island is its most
populated town of Vathy, where a series of waves
flooded the waterfront buildings. On the southern
coast of Samos, wave runup reached 0.5 m, and the
tsunami did not inundate the waterfront of the harbor
in Pythagorion (Kalligeris, personal communication).
In Samos, a maximum inundation of 102 m was
reported in Vathy town on the northeast coast (Tri-
antafyllou et al. 2021).
To summarize, our findings reveal a significant
amplification of the tsunami in small bays with nar-
row entrances, resulting in highly localized tsunami
effects. The tsunami impact in such locations (espe-
cially in Sığacık and the central bay of Akarca) was
much more severe than in other surveyed areas. The
surveyed coastlines contain many streams (Azmak),
which increased the potential tsunami inundation and
impact. We also observed severe damage on proper-
ties at various surveyed locations, especially in
poorly engineered coastal structures, i.e., fishery
shelters.
An important survey finding was the remarkable
level of tsunami awareness among the population of
the surveyed coastlines. Most people moved away
from the shores after noticing the sea withdrawal,
 G. G. Dogan et al. Pure Appl. Geophys.

Figure 16
a A boat dragged 90 m inland in Akarca (A6). b Damaged shore-facing structures in Akarca fishery port area. c Half-full water storage tank
(in red rectangles) dragged from the shoreline. d A car dragged 55 m inland and damaged by the tsunami at point A3

Figure 17
a Sweep deposits found at points a T1 and b T5 in Tepecik locality, where the tsunami inundation and impact was limited to these small
inundation areas. The red dashed line indicates the estimated inundation border at point T5 according to the sweep deposits

which may be considered a successful self-evacua-
tion. Unfortunately, an older woman was reported
dead after failing to resist strong currents generated
by the tsunami.
The eastern Aegean coastal settlements experi-
enced three significant normal-faulting events in the
last decade, i.e., 12 June 2017 Lesvos-Karaburun (Mw
6.3) 20 July 2017 Bodrum-Kos (Mw 6.6), and 30
October 2020 Aegean Sea (Mw 6.6), generating tsu-
namis. The first two tsunami events occurred at
approximately 110 km north–northwest and south–
southeast from the 30 October earthquake’s
 The 30 October 2020 Aegean Sea Tsunami

Figure 18
View of Teos Marina layout a before and b after the event with damaged pontoons (taken from a local newspaper, https://www.sabah.com.tr/
video/yasam/depremin-merkez-ussu-seferisar-sigaciktaki-tsunami-felaketi-havadan-boyle-goruntulendi-video), and c after the event taken by
a drone showing the damaged pontoons and boats (provided by a boat owner in the marina)

Figure 19
Observed damage in a, b the floating piers used for berthing and mooring, and c, d the seafront harbor facilities in Akarca fishery shelter
 G. G. Dogan et al.
Figure 20
Photos showing heavy damage in Zeytineli fishery shelter where all of the boats and mooring facilities were unusable after the tsunami
epicenter. The former event caused only minor
impact with observed coastal amplitudes less than
0.5 m in Plomari town and surrounding areas in
Greece, and Karaburun and Foça towns in Turkey.
The second event, the Bodrum-Kos tsunami, resulted
in a more remarkable impact with significant boat and
property damage in Bodrum Peninsula, Turkey, and
Kos Island, Greece, showing similarities with the
latest tsunami. The tsunami impact was focused on
Gümbet Bay on the southern coast of Bodrum with a
maximum runup of 1.9 m. More considerable tsu-
nami inundation was observed in several streambeds
in the small bays, reaching 280 m. The inundation
was limited only to the eastern part of the Kos Island,
where the amphora-shaped bay of the Kos Port with a
narrow entrance was the worst-hit area on the island.
Both events showed highly localized tsunami effects
with runup heights less than 5 m and first waves
arriving at the nearest coast within minutes. The
tsunami impact was the highest in the last event, with
larger runup and inundation causing extensive loss of
properties, damage to marine vessels, and a casualty.
It was fortunate that this event occurred during a
Pure Appl. Geophys.
pandemic and in autumn, i.e., it could have caused a
significant number of injured and casualties if it had
occurred during the regular summer season, consid-
ering beaches of the Aegean Sea during summer
times. The observed increase in the tsunami aware-
ness in the affected coastal areas, where it was
deficient during the 2017 Bodrum-Kos event (Ari-
kawa et al. 2017; Dogan et al. 2019), is another
important finding for future social preparedness.
Acknowledgements
The authors acknowledge Yüksel Proje International
Co. for significant and invaluable support, which
enabled the field survey to be quick, secure, safe, and
effective under pandemic conditions. The authors
also acknowledge EMAY International Engineering
Co. for considerable support to the expenses for the
effective survey. Acknowledgements are extended to
several institutions and numerous individuals for their
supports at different phases of post-tsunami field
survey works; the institutions and/or entities are
 The 30 October 2020 Aegean Sea Tsunami

TÜBİTAK (Project No: 119Y419 and Project No:
5200101), METU, Yıldız Technical University,
Kocaeli University, İstanbul Metropolitan Munici-
pality, Dokuz Eylül University, İzmir Metropolitan
Municipality, Çeşme Municipality, Seferihisar
Municipality, and Dolfen Consultancy and Engineer-
ing Company. The distinguished individuals are Dr.
Nikos Kalligeris from National Observatory of
Athens, General Manager of Sığacık Teos Marina
Mr. Faruk Günlü and Technical Director of Sığacık
Teos Marina Mr. Özgür Uğan, General Manager of
Port Alaçatı Marina Ms. Deniz Şahin, General
Manager of Çeşme Marina Mr. Can Akalkan, Dr.
Hasan Gökhan Güler, Civil Engineer MSc. Cem
Bingöl, Civil Engineer MSc. Mehmet Sedat Gözlet,
Geomatic Engineers Özgür Şahin Sarı and Seçkin
Demirel, Geology Engineer Evrens Yapar and Geo-
physical Engineer MSc. Evrim Yavuz, Civil Engineer
Yurttabir Özel, Mapping Technicians Mr. Erhan
Yükselen and Mr. Ömer Mede. The eyewitnesses,
Temel Okyar, Mehmet Ali Okyar, Nejat Demirkıran,
Aydın Tunca, Mehmet Yarar, Zuhal Karabey,
Mustafa Gül, Cengiz Özkan, are also acknowledged
for their close cooperation.
International Engineering Co. provided considerable
support to the survey expenses. The travel expenses
of Yalcin Yuksel and Cihan Şahin are covered by
TÜBİTAK Project No: 5200101. TÜBİTAK Project
No: 119Y419 partly supported the field expenses. In-
kind support of Çeşme and Seferihisar municipalities
to perform the measurements are other indirect
funding to the survey.
Data Availability
The preliminary results of the first field survey (rapid
survey on the 2 days after the earthquake) were
published as a preliminary report (http://www.
tsunami-ege.com/20201031_samos_izmir_tsunami_
report.pdf and https://drive.google.com/file/d/
1HzVFjMsZ5zei2UTAoIdrcWFtPpzGr8U9/view?usp
=sharing) to share the field observations with the
related global research community. The preliminary
report’s data have been updated with accurate mea-
surements and detailed interpretations of eyewitness
interviews obtained in the next field surveys and
presented comprehensively in this paper.

Declaration

Funding Conflict of interest The authors have no conflicts of interest.

Yüksel Proje International Co. provided significant Appendix 1

and invaluable cash support and paid a considerable See Table 1.
amount of survey and travel/accommodation
expenses of the METU team members. EMAY

Table 1
Focal parameters of the 30 October 2020 (12:51 UTC) Samos Island–I˙zmir earthquake and its aftershocks for M C 4.0

Date (D.M.Y) UTC (h:min) Mw Depth (km) Latitude (° N) Longitude (° E) Az. (°) Dip (°) Rake (°) Ref

30.10.2020 12:51 6.6 16.5 37.8881 26.7770 95 43 -87 1

30.10.2020 12:53 4.7a 7.1 37.8406 26.7995 93 60 -91 1
30.10.2020 12:58 4.2a 7.0 37.8751 26.8986 96 53 -86 1
30.10.2020 13:01 4.0a 6.8 37.8118 26.9185 97 34 -85 1
30.10.2020 13:29 4.2 7.3 37.9880 27.0716 82 53 -107 1
30.10.2020 14:00 4.8 3.4 37.8520 26.8216 111 58 -72 1
30.10.2020 14:06 4.2 7.1 37.8393 26.9850 90 45 -106 1
30.10.2020 15:46 4.0 11.0 37.8088 26.7125 91 51 -89 2
30.10.2020 16:14 5.1 7.7 37.8331 26.8690 103 45 -85 1
30.10.2020 16:19 4.4 7.0 37.8388 26.8780 97 41 -85 1
30.10.2020 21:35 4.0 13.0 37.8339 26.4862 303 60 -80 2
 G. G. Dogan et al. Pure Appl. Geophys.

Table 1 continued

Date (D.M.Y) UTC (h:min) Mw Depth (km) Latitude (° N) Longitude (° E) Az. (°) Dip (°) Rake (°) Ref

31.10.2020 00:05 4.0 8.0 37.8490 26.8119 119 47 -116 2

31.10.2020 02:40 4.2 16.0 37.8936 26.4855 95 57 -97 2
31.10.2020 03:10 4.1 8.0 37.8211 26.8831 91 42 -77 2
31.10.2020 06:31 5.0 7.3 37.8701 26.8303 271 52 -98 1
31.10.2020 09:47 4.0 13.0 37.9264 26.4860 95 60 -93 2
31.10.2020 05:42 4.4 12.0 37.8785 26.4579 95 42 -91 2
01.11.2020 08:05 4.2 12.0 37.9203 26.9379 89 39 -111 2
01.11.2020 08:33 4.4 11.0 37.8146 26.8477 297 74 -61 2
02.11.2020 12:58 4.0 11.0 37.8934 26.8408 109 33 -105 2
02.11.2020 21:16 4.3 13.0 37.8585 26.4478 95 65 -97 2
03.11.2020 21:35 4.0 13.0 37.8602 26.4594 260 33 -109 2
09.11.2020 21:30 4.1 10.0 37.8729 27.0078 271 54 -97 2
11.11.2020 07:49 4.3 12.0 37.8418 26.9433 92 51 -98 2
a
Local magnitude (ML), Ref-1: AFAD (2020)—http://deprem.afad.gov.tr, Ref-2: NOA (2020)—http://bbnet.gein.noa.gr

Appendix 2

See Table 2.

Table 2
Summary of the field survey measurements

Locality Point Latitude Longitude Measurement Type Inundation Notes

ID (° N) (° E) (m) distance (m)

Alaçatı AL1 38.2556 26.3833 1.0 T –

AL2 38.2559 26.3820 1.0 R 73 Alaçatı Fishery Port, inundation limit
AL3 38.2530 26.3839 1.0 T –
AL4 38.2525 26.3849 1.2 T –
AL5 38.2520 26.3844 0.9 R 73 Port Alaçatı, inundation limit
AL6 38.2635 26.3730 1.7 other – Water level increase in the manmade channel-like port,
Port Alaçatı houses
AL7 38.2632 26.3765 1.7 other – Water level increase in the manmade channel-like port,
Port Alaçatı houses
AL8 38.2657 26.3775 – – 1160 A boat was dragged up to this point
AL9 38.2769 26.3927 – – 2490 Maximum tsunami penetration among all surveyed
locations at Alaçatı Azmak stream
Zeytineli Z1 38.1973 26.4930 0.6 R 270 Inundation limit
Z2 38.1964 26.4924 1.1 T
Z3 38.1959 26.4901 1.9 T
Z4 38.1959 26.4903 1.5 F
Z5 38.1960 26.4886 1.9 F
Z6 38.1951 26.4919 2.4 T
Z7 38.1948 26.4920 2.3 T
Z8 38.1974 26.4899 0.7 Other Zeytineli Azmak bridge, water overflowed the bridge at
that elevation
Z9 38.2009 26.4933 0.6 R 710
Z10 38.2014 26.4936 0.5 R 760 Inundation limit
Demircili D1 38.2116 26.6769 – – 45 Beachside, only small inundation
D2 38.2075 26.6864 1.0 Other * 1.00 water level increase inside the harbor, the sea
receded to 1.80 m depth
D3 38.2104 26.6944 0.7 R 15
 The 30 October 2020 Aegean Sea Tsunami

Table 2 continued

Locality Point Latitude Longitude Measurement Type Inundation Notes

ID (° N) (° E) (m) distance (m)

Altınköy ALT1 38.2135 26.7220 – – 230 Inundation limit at the beachside

ALT2 38.2155 26.7214 0.2 F 600 Tsunami penetration along the streambed
Sığacık S1 38.1912 26.7832 2.1 T
S2 38.1912 26.7844 1.5 T
S3 38.1911 26.7845 1.6 T
S4 38.1914 26.7851 1.5 T
S5 38.1928 26.7853 1.5 T
S6 38.1924 26.7862 1.0 T
S7 38.1941 26.7841 2.1 T
S8 38.1951 26.7853 2.2 T
S9 38.1955 26.7871 1.8 T
S10 38.1952 26.7872 0.7 T
S11 38.1961 26.7877 2.0 T
S12 38.1959 26.7885 – – 140 A boat was dragged to this point from the shore
S13 38.1958 26.7884 2.0 T
S14 38.1958 26.7901 1.6 R
S15 38.1984 26.7907 2.0 T
S16 38.1981 26.7909 1.8 T
S17 38.1983 26.7918 2.0 T
S18 38.1986 26.7930 1.4 R 360
S19 38.1992 26.7929 1.4 R 410 Maximum inundation in Sığacık
S20 38.2012 26.7857 1.9 T
S21 38.2015 26.7856 1.9 R
S22 38.1915 26.7850 0.9 T
S23 38.1907 26.7830 1.2 T
S24 38.1912 26.7847 1.4 T
S25 38.1912 26.7849 1.6 T
S26 38.1912 26.7857 1.0 T
S27 38.1918 26.7863 1.3 T
S28 38.1919 26.7867 1.3 R
S29 38.1926 26.7864 1.4 R
S30 38.1910 26.7873 1.8 R
S31 38.1935 26.7861 1.3 T
S32 38.1940 26.7856 1.3 T
S33 38.1941 26.7853 1.4 T
S34 38.1942 26.7848 1.3 T
S35 38.1943 26.7847 1.4 T
S36 38.1951 26.7854 2.3 T Maximum tsunami height among all surveyed locations
S37 38.1954 26.7856 1.8 T
S38 38.1952 26.7862 1.9 T
S39 38.1956 26.7876 1.7 T
S40 38.1956 26.7881 1.2 T
S41 38.2039 26.7802 1.5 R
S42 38.1916 26.7845 0.8 F
S43 38.1918 26.7838 0.6 F
S44 38.1956 26.7874 0.9 F
S45 38.1956 26.7884 0.6 F
S46 38.1950 26.7866 0.4 F
S47 38.1949 26.7861 0.4 F
S48 38.2013 26.7860 1.5 F
 G. G. Dogan et al. Pure Appl. Geophys.

Table 2 continued

Locality Point Latitude Longitude Measurement Type Inundation Notes

ID (° N) (° E) (m) distance (m)

Akarca A1 38.1645 26.8148 1.9 Other Splash height

Ground elevation 0.89 m
A2 38.1644 26.8150 2.5 T
A3 38.1645 26.8152 – – 55 A car was dragged to this point from the shore
A4 38.1645 26.8154 2.4 T
A5 38.1651 26.8156 3.8 R 91 Maximum runup among all surveyed locations,
inundation limit
A6 38.1659 26.8148 – – 90 A boat was dragged to this point from the shore
A7 38.1682 26.8135 1.1 T
A8 38.1683 26.8135 1.0 R 290 Inundation limit
A9 38.1667 26.8122 1.5 T
A10 38.1668 26.8118 1.1 T
A11 38.1665 26.8112 2.0 T
A12 38.1665 26.8107 2.1 T
A13 38.1680 26.8079 1.2 R 80
A14 38.1681 26.8112 0.9 R 250 Inundation limit
A15 38.1641 26.8149 0.5 F 40
A16 38.1675 26.8092 1.5 T
A17 38.16693 26.8092 1.6 T
A18 38.1663 26.8092 2.0 T
A19 38.1666 26.8092 1.8 T
A20 38.1671 26.8091 1.9 T
A21 38.1672 26.8093 2.3 T
A22 38.1681 26.8092 1.2 R
A23 38.1656 26.8138 2.4 T
A24 38.1657 26.8137 2.9 T
A25 38.1667 26.8149 1.8 T
A26 38.1669 26.8151 1.8 T
A27 38.1673 26.8153 1.5 R
A28 38.1673 26.8154 1.6 R
A29 38.1671 26.8151 1.8 T
A30 38.1711 26.8038 – – 20 Inundation limit
A31 38.1647 26.8146 1.3 F
A32 38.1559 26.8251 0.8 F
A33 38.1665 26.8110 0.6 F
A34 38.1664 26.8120 0.8 F
A35 38.1681 26.8113 0.1 F 250 Inundation limit
A36 38.1615 26.8213 0.2 F
A37 38.1618 26.8212 – – 100
A38 38.1622 26.8215 – – 150 Inundation limit
A39 38.1615 26.8204 – – 45
A40 38.1629 26.8190 – – 80 Inundation limit
Tepecik T1 38.1458 26.8201 – – 12 Inundation limit, only sweeps
T2 38.1390 26.8306 – – 20 Inundation limit on the beach, only sweeps
T3 38.1395 26.8314 – – 120 Tsunami penetration along a small stream, Orsal Bay
T4 38.1356 26.8331 1.5 F –
T5 38.1114 26.8443 – – 18 Inundation limit, eyewitness: 25 m sea recession
 The 30 October 2020 Aegean Sea Tsunami

Table 2 continued

Locality Point Latitude Longitude Measurement Type Inundation Notes

ID (° N) (° E) (m) distance (m)

Gümüldür G1 38.0757 26.9493 23 Inundation limit in front of Rafael Boutique Hotel

G2 38.0757 26.950 15 Inundation limit, only sweeps
G3 38.0677 26.9953 Minor damage on boats in harbor, no trace of water on
objects
G4 38.0652 26.9988 0.5 F
G5 38.0652 26.9992 25 Inundation limit, sweeps on a walking road
G6 38.0577 27.0117 25 Inundation limit
R runup, T tsunami height, F flow depth, Other see the notes

Appendix 3

See Figs. 21 and 22.

Figure 21
Security video frames showing different stages of the tsunami motion in the Port Alaçatı houses, Alaçatı, Fig. 3a (38.2592° N, 26.3797° E).
Timestamps are in local time (GMT ? 03:00), and the earthquake time is 14:51:23 (AFAD 2020). a No water motion 10 min after the
earthquake, b maximum water withdrawal (* 1.50 m), the white boat started to move from its original location, c start of inundation, the
white and adjacent boats, and the small berthing structures were moved and damaged, and d maximum water level increase (* 1.70 m) and
inundation in the region. Red and yellow ellipses show water level changes at specific locations, around the small tree over the middle
breakwater and quay floor, respectively
 G. G. Dogan et al. Pure Appl. Geophys.

Figure 22
Security video frames showing different stages of tsunami motion in the Kaleiçi region of Sığacık (38.1953° N, 26.7856° E). Timestamps are
in local time (GMT ? 03:00), and the earthquake time is 14:51:23 (AFAD 2020). a Start of water motion, b maximum sea withdrawal, c start
of the incoming wave, d start of inundation, e significant inundation, and f maximum inundation in the pedestrian road. The red rectangles
show (i) the boat movement in all frames due to water level change, (ii) the emerging seabed material due to sea withdrawal in the frame (b),
and (iii) the disappeared sidewalk and bench in frames (e, f) due to inundation
 The 30 October 2020 Aegean Sea Tsunami
Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral
with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps
and institutional affiliations.
REFERENCES
AFAD (2020). Disaster and Emergency Management Authority
(AFAD), Ministry of Interiors, Ankara-Turkey. http://deprem.
afad.gov.tr.
Anadolu Agency (2020). https://www.aa.com.tr/tr/yasam/kismi-
tsunamide-olen-kadinin-oglu-ile-torunu-yasadiklarini-anlatti/203
0786#. Accessed 03 Nov 2020.
Aktar, M., Karabulut, H., Ozalaybey, S., & Childs, D. (2007). A
conjugate strike-slip fault system within the extensional tectonics
of Western Turkey. Geophysical Journal International, 171(3),
1363–1375. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-246X.2007.03598.x
Altınok, Y., Alpar, B., Ozer, N., & Gazioglu, C. (2005). 1881 and
1949 earthquakes at the Chios-Cesme Strait (Aegean Sea) and
their relation to tsunamis. Natural Hazards and Earth System
Sciences, 5, 717–725.
Altınok, Y., Alpar, B., Ozer, N., & Vardar, H. (2011). Revision of
the tsunami catalogue affecting Turkish coasts and surrounding
regions. Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences, 11(2),
273–291.
Altınok, Y., & Ersoy, S. (2000). Tsunamis observed on and near the
Turkish coast. Natural Hazards, 21, 185–205.
Ambraseys, N. N. (1962). Data for the investigation of the seismic
sea-waves in the Eastern Mediterranean. Bulletin of the Seis-
mological Society of America, 52(4), 895–913.
Ambraseys, N., & Synolakis, C. (2010). Tsunami catalogs for the
Eastern Mediterranean, revisited. Journal of Earthquake Engi-
neering, 14(3), 309–330.
Beisel, S., Chubarov, L., Didenkulova, I., Kit, E., Levin, A., Peli-
novsky, E., et al. (2009). The 1956 Greek tsunami recorded at
Yafo, Israel, and its numerical modeling. Journal of Geophysical
Research Oceans, 114, C09002. https://doi.org/10.1029/
2008JC005262
Bozkurt, E. (2003). Origin of NE-trending basins in western Tur-
key. Geodinamica Acta, 16, 61–81.
Chatzipetros, A., Kiratzi, A., Sboras, S., Zouros, N., & Pavlides, S.
(2013). Active faulting in the north-eastern Aegean Sea Islands.
Tectonophysics, 597, 106–122.
Dewey, J. F., & Şengor, A. M. C. (1979). Aegean and surrounding
regions: complex multiplate and continuum tectonics in a con-
vergent zone. Geological Society of America Bulletin, 90, 84–92.
Dogan, G. G., Annunziato, A., Papadopoulos, G. A., Guler, H. G.,
Yalciner, A. C., Cakir, T. E., et al. (2019). The 20th July 2017
Bodrum-Kos Tsunami field survey. Pure and Applied Geo-
physics, 176, 2925–2949. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00024-019-
02151-1
Dominey-Howes, D. (2002). Documentary and geological records
of tsunamis in the Aegean Sea region of Greece and their
potential value to risk assessment and disaster management.
Natural Hazards, 25(3), 195–224.
Emre, Ö., Duman, T. Y., Özalp, S., Elmacı, H., Olgun, Ş, &
Şaroğlu, F. (2013). New active fault map of Turkey, Mineral
Research and Exploration General Directorate (MTA). Ministry
of Energy.
Emre, O., Ozalp, S., Duman, T. Y. (2011). 1:250,000 scale active
fault map series of Turkey, İzmir (NJ 35-7) Quadrangle. Serial
number: 6, General Directorate of Mineral Research and
Exploration, Ankara.
Evelpidou, N., Pavlopoulos, K., Vouvalidis, K., Syrides, G., Tri-
antaphyllou, M., Karkani, A., & Paraschou, T. (2019). Holocene
palaeogeographical reconstruction and relative sea-level changes
in the southeastern part of the island of Samos (Greece). Comptes
Rendus Geoscience, 351(6), 451–460.
Galanopoulos, A. G. (1960). Tsunamis observed on the coasts of
Greece from antiquity to present time. Annals of Geophysics,
13(3–4), 369–386.
Jackson, J. (1994). Active tectonics of the Aegean region. Annual
Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences, 22(1), 239–271.
Jackson, J. A., & McKenzie, D. (1988). Rates of active deformation
in the Aegean Sea and surrounding regions. Basin Research, 1,
121–128.
KOERI (2020). Kandilli Observatory and Earthquake Research
Institute, Istanbul-Turkey. http://koeri.boun.edu.tr.
Kuran, U., & Yalciner, A. C. (1993). Crack propagations, earth-
quakes and tsunamis in the vicinity of Anatolia. In S. Tinti (Ed.),
Tsunamis in the world. Advances in natural and technological
hazards research (Vol. 1, pp. 159–175). Springer. https://doi.org/
10.1007/978-94-017-3620-6_13
Minoura, K., Imamura, F., Kuran, U., Nakamura, T., Papadopoulos,
G. A., Takahashi, T., & Yalciner, A. C. (2000). Discovery of
Minoan tsunami deposits. Geology, 28(1), 59–62.
Okal, E. A., Synolakis, C. E., Uslu, B., Kalligeris, N., & Vouk-
ouvalas, E. (2009). The 1956 earthquake and tsunami in
Amorgos, Greece. Geophysical Journal International, 178(3),
1533–1554.
Papadopoulos, G. A., & Chalkis, B. J. (1984). Tsunamis observed
in Greece and the surrounding area from antiquity up to the
present times. Marine Geology, 56(1–4), 309–317.
Papadopoulos, G. A., Gràcia, E., Urgeles, R., Sallares, V., De
Martini, P. M., Pantosti, D., et al. (2014). Historical and pre-
historical tsunamis in the Mediterranean and its connected seas:
geological signatures, generation mechanisms and coastal
impacts. Marine Geology, 354, 81–109.
Papadopoulos, G. A., & Pavlides, S. B. (1992). The large 1956
earthquake in the South Aegean: macroseismic field configura-
tion, faulting, and neotectonics of Amorgos Island. Earth and
Planetary Science Letters, 113(3), 383–396.
Papazachos, B. C., Koutitas, C., Hatzidimitriou, P. M., Karacostas,
B. G., & Papaioannou, C. A. (1985). Source and short-distance
propagation of the July 9, 1956 southern Aegean tsunami.
Marine Geology, 65(3–4), 343–351.
Papazachos, B. C., Papadimitriou, E. E., Kiratzi, A. A., Papaza-
chos, C. B., & Louvari, E. K. (1998). Fault plane solutions in the
Aegean Sea and the surrounding area and their tectonic impli-
cation. Bollettino Geofisica Teorica Applicata, 39(3), 199–218.
Ring, U., Gessner, K., & Thomson, S. (2017). Variations in fault-
slip data and cooling history reveal corridor of heterogeneous
backarc extension in the eastern Aegean Sea region. Tectono-
physics, 700, 108–130.
Tan, O., Eleftheria, E. L., Pamucçu, Z., Karakostas, V., Yörük, A.,
& Leptokaropoulos, K. (2014). A detailed analysis of micro-
seismicity in Samos and Kusadasi (Eastern Aegean Sea). Acta
 G. G. Dogan et al.
Geophysica, 62(6), 1283–1309. https://doi.org/10.2478/s11600-
013-0194-1
Taymaz, T., Jackson, J., & McKenzie, D. (1991). Active tectonics
of the north and central Aegean Sea. Geophysical Journal
International, 106(2), 433–490. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-
246X.1991.tb03906.x
Tepe, Ç., & Sözbilir, H. (2017). Tectonic geomorphology of the
Kemalpaşa Basin and surrounding horsts, southwestern part of
the Gediz Graben, Western Anatolia, Anatolia. Geodinamica
Acta, 29(1), 70–90. https://doi.org/10.1080/09853111.2017.
1317191
Tinti, S., Maramai, A., & Graziani, L. (2001). A new version of the
European tsunami catalogue: updating and revision. Natural
Hazards and Earth System Sciences, 1, 255–262.
(Received December 21, 2020, revised March 4, 2021, accepted March 6, 2021)
Pure Appl. Geophys.
UNESCO (2014). International Tsunami Survey Team (ITST)
Post-Tsunami Survey Field Guide. 2nd Edition. IOC Manuals
and Guides No.37, Paris: UNESCO 2014 (English).
Wessel, P., & Smith, W. H. (1998). New, improved version of
generic mapping tools released. Eos Transactions American
Geophysical Union, 79(47), 579–579.
Yalciner, A. C., Kuran, U., Akyarli, A., & Imamura, F. (1995). An
investigation on the propagation of tsunamis in the Aegean Sea
by mathematical modeling. In Y. Tsuchiya & N. Shuto (Eds.),
Tsunami: progress in prediction, disaster prevention and warn-
ing. Advances in natural and technological hazards research
(Vol. 4, pp. 55–70). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-
015-8565-1_4